Aside from the ethanol-specific issues there are a couple of really simple concepts regarding 'green living' and global warming. As long as people produce more heat than mother nature can re-absorb (plant growth absorbs heat) we will be contributing to global warming. But observe that the majority of this continent was once covered in glaciers and most of them managed to melt away with no help from us. So is global warming a reality? Of course. Can we stop it? Not a chance in hell. And it's no surprise that the folks lobbying the hardest for a reduction in global warming are the ones that own the most expensive ocean-front real estate. ----- Original Message ----- From: Martin Eby To: Flash. ; <[email protected]> <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 10:47 PM Subject: Re: NMC, NPC; E85 article
The first one I ran into was one of my professors when I was in college during the 70s. The most prominent now are 1) David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell and 2) Tad W. Patzek, professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California at Berkeley. These scientists have no financial stake in a particular outcome and their findings are published in peer-reviewed journals. When you google them, you'll find not just synopses of their findings, but also zillions of people reviling them for their findings. On the other side are many people associated with ethanol producers, agricultural agencies, and various political movements. I don't, in general, question their motives, but certainly the vast majority a) have a vested interest in the outcome b) their claims have not been subjected to peer review. Some more comments: 1) An increasing number of scientists and economists are coming out against ethanol for reasons other than the energy balance. These are primarily ozone pollution, deforestation, CO2 levels, and (increasingly) food prices and other macro-economic concerns. 2) The energy balance has improved over the years as various ethanol "refining" technologies have advanced. Depending on what is and what is not counted, it is now possible to calculate a positive energy return for ethanol and several scientists have done so. To the best of my knowledge, none of them have considered details I feel should be included such as the energy necessary to construct the required ethanol plants, farm equipment, and transportation equipment, etc. 3) I don't know why people capable of honest debate (and possibly even respecting opinions other than their own?) would stoop to denigration, smear tactics, and disingenuous argumentation. Jim denigrates scientists not supporting ethanol by putting quotes around the word "scientists" -- implying these professors are not actually scientists. In your response, you present absolutely nothing opposing my statements or supporting your (apparently different) opinion -- but you do find time to suggest that I am "regurgitating" bad television and engaging in "fear mongering". Is it your position that anyone holding an opinion different than your own must be an alarmist incapable of critical thought? 4) I would not describe the UDSA as an unbiased observer, but there is much good science and clear statements of assumptions and differences in these reports. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/AER721/ and http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/aer-814.pdf. Both find a positive balance for ethanol, but they also refers to some of Dr. Pimentel's work and explain why they reach such different conclusions. Not surprisingly, ethanol proponents claim that Dr. Pimentel's facts are out of date because technology has improved efficieny while Dr. Pimentel argues that economic/political considerations have led proponents to use unrealistically optimistic numbers, include inappropriate factors, omit certain inconvenient facts. My take is that there is probably truth to be found in both sides' arguments. 5) Late breaking news -- I just tumbled onto this guy: http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/03/how-reliable-are-those-usda-ethanol.html . He says pretty much exactly what I've been trying to say here, but much better than I ever could. (Don't read just the linked article -- most all his writings are interesting and pertinent.) At 01:02 PM 8/7/2008, Flash. wrote: Finally, there is what the author conveniently failed to mention: Many > scientists calculate that it takes as much or more energy to produce ethanol > as can be obtained from it. The result, then, is no net energy savings, but > enormous (and awful) unintended environmental and economic consequences. > I have heard this time and time again but I have seen NO SUBSTANTIATED STUDIES OR METRICS TO SUPPORT IT. Are you regurgiatating what you saw on the [H]ysteria channel and simply fear-mongering or do you have data to satisfy this claim? I would be VERY interested in reading it. The other challenge is this -- Most farmers aren't using Diesel or Gasoline as we know it anyway to farm their land, Are they? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Miatapower mailing list [email protected] http://list.miatapower.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/miatapower
_______________________________________________ Miatapower mailing list [email protected] http://list.miatapower.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/miatapower
